Interview with Dr. Fabienne Pradella on policy sessions at the annual conferences of the German

Society for Epidemiology

Dr. Fabienne Pradella is a researcher at the University of Bremen. She was a postdoctoral researcher at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and the Heidelberg Institute for Global Health. Her research lies at the intersection of epidemiology and economics and focuses on the prerequisites for a healthy life for all from pregnancy to old age. Her current projects focus on the effects of environmental influences during pregnancy on offspring health and on the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases in later life.

Dr Pradella, at which events have you organized policy sessions?

We held our sessions on the UN Sustainable Development Goals at the annual conferences of the German Society for Epidemiology, which take place every year with approximately 250–300 participants. The annual conferences are held in a different city each year, and we invited two to three local decision makers to discuss a specific topic with us.

How did the idea of inviting decision-makers to a scientific event come about? What topics did your session cover?

The idea arose in discussions with colleagues at previous annual conferences. A healthy life for all people of all ages is one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Science and research, as also on the local level, are also considered highly important for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals – so we found it exciting to bring Germany’s epidemiological community into contact with local decision makers at the annual conferences. Our idea was to combine scientific and practical perspectives. To this end, we selected topics that are highly relevant to research and practice, such as children’s health and access to healthy food.

Which policymakers did you invite? Did you already have contact with them beforehand

We contacted people with connections to the topic of our session at various levels. For example, the deputy mayor of Ulm was a guest, as were people involved in local initiatives, such as an employee of an association that promotes healthy daycare and school meals in the Greifswald region. We had not had any previous contact with these individuals, and over time, it became clear that contacting them by phone was the best way to explain our concerns. We also met with some of them for lunch in the run-up to the conference.

How did you structure your policy session?

The sessions usually began with keynote speeches lasting no more than 10 minutes, covering scientific and practical perspectives. Since the exchange between science and practice is a priority for us, we experimented with various interactive formats, such as thesis discussions and scientific “speed dating.” As organizers , we primarily moderated and facilitated transitions between core questions. It was also important to us to document the sessions. Our core organizing team consisted of three people, one of whom usually summarized the discussion on flipchart paper during the session so that all participants could see it.

Science and practice have different ways of thinking. Also, science and practice often use technical terms that aren’t known in the other “world.” How did communication between researchers and decision makers work in your sessions? Was it always clear to participants what was meant?

We certainly learned a lot in this regard. It helped to make the topic of the sessions as concrete as possible. To cover the thematic expertise from a scientific perspective as well, we involved the working groups of the professional association—after all, we also organized sessions on topics that we ourselves do not research. This gave rise to exciting ideas that also facilitated communication. For example, we worked with the Health Geography working group to develop a street map in Greifswald to discuss access to healthy and sustainable nutrition using a concrete example.

Did the exchange with decision makers give you any ideas for your own research?

Yes, definitely. As I mentioned earlier, I learned a lot about how to present my research in a way tailored to the target audience. Discussing knowledge gaps and practice-relevant topics in our sessions also gave rise to research ideas – though not necessarily for my own research, as I have no expertise in daycare or school catering, for example. Instead, I learned a lot of new things and gained insights into other fields of research. In terms of motivation, the sessions also made me even more aware of the relevance of my research.

Was planning and conducting the policy sessions more time-consuming than conducting a regular scientific session?

I would say the organization was at least different, with much more communication and coordination in advance. Finding relevant decision makers was not always easy, and it sometimes took a while to reach the right person. Personally, however, I found this a welcome change, especially during my doctoral studies. A big advantage was that we didn’t need any financial resources, since the sessions took place as part of a larger event and there were no travel costs, thanks to the involvement of local decision makers.

What tips would you give to researchers who are considering organizing policy sessions as part of scientific conferences?

For our sessions, it was important that we formed an organizational team made up of people at different stages of their careers, with different skills and backgrounds. We also discussed our plans in advance with the professional association’s board. The dynamics and interests of participants at scientific conferences certainly vary by discipline. At the time, we decided to simply try out our idea—with the attitude that we would also learn something even if no one came. Ultimately, it turned out that there was interest, in our case, especially among young researchers.

Tome Sandevski conducted this interview.